nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Weapon size
From when this page was "weapons" Info correct? *The tables are copied directly from the original NWN manual and some of the information deffinitely looks "fruity". e.g. maces do piercing damage, hand-axes have 0 weight etc :/ -Defunc7 *Yeah, the manual has some errors. I believe the correct info is in baseitems.2da. If you don't have (or don't want to download all the 2das), I can send it to you via IM or email. -- Austicke 18:20, 9 Sep 2005 (PDT) Page for each weapon? *This is good work, thanks. However, I think we should put each weapon type on a seperate page -- just like we've done with spells, feats, etc. What do others think? -- Austicke 15:33, 10 Sep 2005 (PDT) * I don't think there's really enough information for each weapon to make a seperate page. --Defunc7 07:07, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT) * Think it could be done if it is broken down into the categories that are shown in the Toolset. At least this way the information is seperated out a bit more logically rather than split based on its size. I have started the process, and later on we can add pictures as well so that people get a feel for the items themselves. Whether we eventually want to go the whole way and list each item in the Master Items List or not is debateable. Enigmatic 15:54, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT) Starting discussion under new title: "weapon size modifier" I know this talk resided on the "weapons" page, when it was just a table of all the weapon stats... now this page isn't that page anymore & none of the talk actually has any relevance, not even on the basic premise of the page.--Defunc7 07:24, 11 Oct 2005 (PDT) * Hopefully that fixes it. I also agree with the fixes, though the width=100% was only there so that it didn't all cramp up to one side (try a preview, it looks rather horrible). I can accept the removal of the cellpadding... as much as I hate thing which actually "touch" borders to tables (personal preference, just think it looks unfinished... too many years of using word tables I guess). Enigmatic 16:07, 11 Oct 2005 (PDT) Article name (weapon size modifier) Shouldn't this article be title Weapon size instead of Weapon size modifier? There really isn't any discussion of the modifier, and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the modifier itself only relates to Disarm (and it's covered in that feat description). -- Austicke 16:13, 11 Oct 2005 (PDT) Well that is true, there is nothing really about any modifier in the article. Im in of the renaming of this article. -- Pstarky 04:49, 16 Oct 2005 (PDT) Done! -- Austicke 12:24, 18 Oct 2005 (PDT) Strange table I don't understand that table right now. Wouldn't it be better to make a 2-parted table. One listing the weapons under their necessary proficiency, the other listing the weapons by damagetype? You could still mark weapons as (ranged) and (double ended) to make everything clear. The table right now however doesn't make sense. What is a Polearm category good for, or why is the katana listed under "bladed", but bastardsord under "exotic" etc.? Gruftlord 19:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC) how about that: Weapons by size and damage type (to be a section in the article) *=exclusive to Hordes of the Underdark. Weapons by size and weapon proficiency (to be a section in the article) *=exclusive to Hordes of the Underdark. Tables listing by proficiency could also be included, so that you would have the total overviev. Any comments? Gruftlord 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC) :*Ok, i did the proficiency table today, listing the 3 main proficiencies and included the 2 special-damagetypes in the first table. Let me know, if anyone likes them :) Gruftlord 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC) *I think I prefer a single table. Breaking the weapons out by proficiency seems more useful to me. Or maybe something like: | | |- !style="background:#EEEEEE"|Small | | | |- !style="background:#EEEEEE"|Medium | | | |- !style="background:#EEEEEE"|Large | | | |} *=exclusive to Hordes of the Underdark. :--The Krit 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC) *This table look fine , its much clearer ILKAY 18:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)) ::*Looks good to me, too (until i find an option to display hypercubes understandably :D). I fixed the empty boxes btw. Gruftlord 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)